VNC replacing Terminal Server?

[John Wilson]

I'm sorry to be banging on about VncProxy today:)

However....
    I have a version of VncProxy running here that does that. It servers up
Vnc connections to requests on the same port from a pool of connections.
These connections can all be on one machine or can be on several.

If you need to do this on a single Linux box  then there is an Xvnc inetd
hack which looks perfect for this purpose

See http://www.dei.isep.ipp.pt/~andre/extern/ixvnc.htm

John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
5 Market Hill, Whitchurch, Aylesbury, Bucks HP22 4JB, UK
+44 1296 641072, +44 976 611010(mobile), +44 1296 641874(fax)
Mailto: tug "at" wilson.co.uk


----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Tilly <ben_tilly "at" hotmail.com>
To: <vnc-list "at" uk.research.att.com>
Sent: 02 September 1999 15:26
Subject: VNC replacing Terminal Server?


> Has anyone been working on a vncserver-server?
>
> What I am thinking of is something like this.  The client shows up and
> authenticates itself at a server.  That server then (possibly after some
> initialization - eg having the box login as a specific user) sets the
client
> up with a connection to a vncserver that the client then communicates
with.
> (That way the client does not need to know which server is free.)
> Unfortunately this requires this front-end server to be written, as well
as
> modifications to the normal server and client.
>
> What gave me the idea was seeing a rather nice $6000 (all figures in US $)
> machine being set up an an NT Terminal server for a maximum of 5 clients.
I
> believe that licensing for this is $3500.  From what I have heard, running
> 10 on one machine is realistically not going to happen, so if you need 2
of
> these beasts then you are going to need to shell out $19,000.  Ouch.
>
> However for $12,500 you can buy 10 $1000 machines, pay for 10 NT licenses,
> and then set the front-end server on a box doing something else.  (Its
load
> is very light.)  Once set up the maintainance is probably easier also.
> After all with Terminal Server you are supposed to do daily reboots, and
if
> something crashes your server, oops.  With this set-up if one machine goes
> down, you might be notified but the rest of them are fine.  Plus each can
> get by with a monthly reboot.  (Of course it draws more electricity and
> takes up more space.)
>
> Furthermore if your application could be run on Linux, you can buy that
> original $6000 machine, and I would feel perfectly comfortable running 10
> active vncserver sessions on it.  (Depending, of course, on the resource
> requirements of the application.)  And you cut out the majority of the
> ongoing administration requirements as well!
>
> In both configurations the modified vncserver solution is cheaper.
>
> So, has anyone been working on this?  (I cannot find any signs of it in a
> quick search of the mailing archives.)
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> The VNC mailing list - see http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------
The VNC mailing list - see http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------